Standing Committee G

[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

New Clause 1 - Illegal deposit or disposal of waste(power of arrest)

'(1) In subsection 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.69), at the end insert— 
''(w) an offence under subsection 33(4A) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.3).'' 
 (2) In section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.3), after subsection (4) insert— 
 ''(4A) A person authorised by the Environmental Protection Agency to exercise the powers specified in section 108(4) of the Environment Act 1995 (c.25) shall have like powers to those of a constable to arrest any person depositing or disposing of waste in contravention of subsection (1).'.'.—[Miss McIntosh.] 
Brought up, and read the First time. 
Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time. 
Question again proposed.

Anne McIntosh: May I welcome you, Mr. Forth, and the rest of the Committee back to our proceedings?
I listened carefully to what the Minister was saying, and I must say that he lost me at one point. He said that he was agreeing with me, but on a different point to the one on which I wished him to agree, and he disagreed with me when I wished him to agree. 
I hope that the Committee has followed the arguments that we crafted on the new clause. I do not accept that the Minister's argument on clause 33 that making the offence subject to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for up to five years is sufficient to deal with our arguments. The whole point is that a police officer would have to effect the arrest. 
We listened carefully to submissions from local authorities and the Environment Agency, and I believe that they would be empowered and that the provisions of the Bill would be strengthened if their officers were authorised to make even a citizen's arrest when appropriate. However, I am mindful of the fact that we have discussed that, and that the Minister has, at least in some regard, recognised our concerns.

Alun Michael: I do not quite understand the hon. Lady's point about the citizen's arrest, because that does not require special legislation to authorise arrest by specific officers of an organisation. As I said earlier, the Environment Agency has advised against giving those powers.

Anne McIntosh: I hear what the Minister says. We understood the reverse from the Environment Agency; we understood that it argued for the powers and that it thought that it was not sufficient to make the illegal deposit or disposal of waste an arrestable offence.
The Minister did not respond on whether evidence taken by camera would be sufficient on some of the sites where we know for a fact that fly-tipping takes place. Will he be good enough to respond on that point? If no police officer was present at the time, would it be sufficient under clause 33, to which he referred, if there was clear evidence on camera associating that person with the offence?

Alun Michael: First, may I respond on the dissonance between the hon. Lady's remarks here and elsewhere on the Bill? It seems rather odd to suggest, as she did earlier, that it is not appropriate for a trained officer of a local authority to undertake the giving of fixed penalty notices for very minor offences, but then to say that the power of arrest should be given to officers of the Environment Agency for what the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) pointed out can be very serious and difficult circumstances. I do not think that that is appropriate.
On the point of evidence by camera, that would be dealt with by the normal rules on what evidence is admissible. I do not think that the issue is relevant to the new clause on the grounds that a camera cannot arrest anybody.

Anne McIntosh: I was not suggesting for a moment that the camera would arrest anybody. My question is about what would happen if a police officer was not there to make the arrest, and the environment officer, under clause 33, is not deemed to be the appropriate person to make an arrest. If the person was arrested at a later stage, could camera evidence be used to convict the person of the offence?

Alun Michael: Yes, I see the point that the hon. Lady is making, but it is a different point to that covered by the new clause. Clearly, if there was camera evidence in addition to the evidence of an official of the Environment Agency or any other witnesses, that would be relevant to how an offence might be prosecuted and to the need for police officers to arrest an individual. The evidence from a camera would be relevant, but I am struggling to understand how it relates to the new clause. However, such evidence could, of course, reinforce the ability of a professional witness, such as an employee of the Environment Agency, to provide evidence to the police for them to undertake an arrest or to the appropriate authorities for them to undertake a prosecution.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister has been extremely helpful. He will recall, and the record will prove it, that I queried specifically what training would be given. He said that a trained officer would be authorised to give fixed penalty notices. I referred to the concerns that were expressed by, among others, the Law Society of England, which said that the Bill did not show that  sufficient training would be given. However, given the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3 - Fixed penalty notices: guidelines for local authorities and the police

'The appropriate person shall consult local authorities and the police before providing guidelines on the precise duties of police officers and local authorities, where there are shared responsibilities, in connection with the powers conferred to local authorities under this Act.'.—[Miss McIntosh] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause follows on from our previous discussions. It is a probing mechanism to elicit from the Minister the precise duties of police officers when carrying out their functions. When we discussed new clause 1, he referred to our debate about whether the officers should be uniformed. He rejected our proposal because he considered that only a police officer should have powers of arrest. New clause 3 explores, in the issuing of fixed penalty notices and guidelines to local authorities and the police, how far that relationship will be set out in the guidelines. To what extent does the Minister imagine that the police will maintain residual responsibility for the issuing of fixed penalty notices? 
Obviously, the penalties in some cases in connection with fixed penalty notices are serious and carry significant fines if they are not met. We are mindful of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has said several times in Committee that discussions about the transfer of resources are ongoing. When there are shared responsibilities in connection with the powers conferred on local authorities under the Bill, will he specify to what extent the guidelines will be completely comprehensive when setting out the delineation of those shared responsibilities? It is extremely important that such matters are referred to in the Bill. I await his clarification.

Alun Michael: I can be brief and give the assurance that the hon. Lady wants. We intend to consult all interested parties on the guidance that will be produced under the Bill. It is not necessary to legislate for such matters because that is the position. Indeed, I have already given that assurance in respect of specific clauses. It is worth pointing out that the Bill contains only limited new duties for local authorities and none for the police. In general, the type of work that will be undertaken is well understood and the guidance will reflect existing patterns.
The hon. Lady returned to shared responsibilities for dogs, which will change to responsibilities being put on the shoulders of the local authority. With the transfer of resources that will follow, that shift of responsibilities is currently under discussion. Otherwise, when there are powers for the police or local authorities to act, there will clearly be relevant  circumstances. I am sure that members of the Committee will recall that parking fines, for example, have moved over time from being something that was only done by the police to being undertaken by other employees of police authorities and local authority employees. Over time that has become understood as the official way of dealing with that. However, often in such circumstances, if the legislation allows, a police officer can act. In other words, it generally does not take the time of a trained police officer to undertake such activity, but he or she can act if the circumstances warrant it, as they do from time to time. 
As I have indicated, such matters will be dealt with. I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion.

Anne McIntosh: Clearly, the purpose of tabling and debating new clause 3 was to say that we would prefer it, in all such instances, if the specific circumstances that would warrant a police officer acting were set out in the Bill.
The Government have had considerable time and have already consulted widely on this matter through the clean neighbourhoods and environment consultation. It is hugely disappointing and complacent that the Minister has seen fit to continue as he has done. We may wish to return to this matter later but, for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6 - Charges for the collection of household waste

'(1) Section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is amended as follows. 
 (2) Leave out subsection (3) and insert— 
 ''(3) A charge may be made for the collection of household waste where this is directly related to the amount of waste collected from each household as prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.''.'.—[Paddy Tipping] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Paddy Tipping: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 9—Incentive schemes for collection of householder waste—
 '(1) The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is amended as follows. 
 (2) For section 45, subsection (3), substitute— 
 ''(3) No charge shall be made for the collection of household waste except in cases that are— 
(a) prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State; and in any of those cases— 
(i) the duty to arrange for the collection of the waste shall not arise until a person who controls the waste requests the authority to collect it; and 
(ii) the authority may recover a reasonable charge for the collection of the waste from the person who made the request; or 
(b) under the provision of subsection (3A) below. 
 (3A) The Secretary of State may authorise a waste collection authority to operate in all or any part of their area an incentive based household waste collection scheme, a proposal for which has been submitted to the Secretary of State, to reward householders who separate their waste for recycling and who minimise their residual waste. 
 (3B) Before any authorisation may be given under subsection (3B) above, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that a proposed scheme— 
(a) has identified and addressed the particular needs of low income households; 
(b) has identified the needs of households with particular problems reducing residual waste; 
(c) will only operate in areas with adequate provisions of recycling collections; 
(d) will only operate in areas with either composting collections or a home composting scheme; and 
(e) has adequate measures to address potential increases in fly-tipping.'' 
 (3) In section 51, at end of subsection (2), insert— 
 ''(2A) Where the Secretary of State has authorised a scheme under section 45(3A) above, that authorisation may include specific exemptions to subsection (2)(c) above in all or part of the area of that authority.'.

Paddy Tipping: New clause 6 provides the Committee with the opportunity to talk about how we charge for the disposal of domestic household waste. Typically, at the moment, we charge through the council tax, but new clauses 6 and 9 allow the discussion of alternative methods of charging for the disposal of such waste, which is variously called directive, variable or incentive charging.
The new clause is straightforward. Existing legislation does not permit such an approach. Indeed, section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 forbids local authorities from taking such an approach. New clause 6 takes away that prohibition and gives the Secretary of State a permissive power to bring forward schemes to allow direct charging. New clause 9, in the name hon. Member for Guildford, does the same thing, but rather than giving a permissive power, it gives indications of how that might be done. I would characterise the situation as my taking, on this occasion, the more liberal, permissive approach and the Liberal Democrats being more restrictive than permissive. It is nice to get one up. 
There have been widespread discussions about direct charging, and I would be grateful if, during our debate, the Minister could bring us up to date with the discussions that I know are taking place between his Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasury. 
There is widespread support for the proposal to move towards direct charging. Let me quote from the Prime Minister's strategy unit's report, ''Waste not, Want not'', in 2002: 
 ''Local authorities that wish to take forward household incentive schemes to help reduce waste volumes and increase recycling should be allowed to do so.'' 
The Minister will be aware that prominent, distinguished members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are present. My hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and myself were involved in  report, called ''The Future of Waste Management'', which was published by that Committee in May 2003. It said: 
 ''We regret that the Government have not yet decided whether to allow local authorities to introduce household incentive schemes.'' 
There is already a body of evidence available to draw on, and local authorities are best placed to judge what it suitable for their areas. The report added: 
 ''We are strongly in favour of local authorities being given the ability to introduce incentive schemes if they so wish.'' 
As well as the scheme finding support from the strategy unit and the Select Committee, local authorities are in favour of experimenting and piloting an approach to direct charging. In a letter, the Local Government Association stated that it is 
''in favour of councils being given the power to introduce incentive schemes. We would not support the introduction of a duty in this respect, but we would welcome local authorities being given the freedom to introduce incentive schemes if they wished to do so. 
 This reflects the LGA's underlying position on freedoms and flexibilities for councils, and proposes councils should have a power—rather than a duty—to charge.'' 
There is a growing body of opinion in favour of direct charging in this country. We can set that against examples in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, to a lesser extent in France, and more recently in Ireland, where direct charging has been introduced. The Socialist Environment and Resources Association, a body that my right hon. Friend knows well, undertook a study in the United States in 2000 in which 6,000 communities used direct charging. 
It is now possible to draw some lessons from that body of evidence and experience. Experience shows that there are advantages to incentive charging. Most importantly, it makes local residents and householders aware of the costs and consequences of waste disposal. At the moment they are not, because the costs are hidden in the council tax.

Patrick Hall: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying, and he is talking now about evidence from elsewhere—largely from the continent—about how incentive charging works. Is there any evidence that charging individual residents leads to an increase in fly-tipping? That point may crop up and be made by those who oppose such charging.

Paddy Tipping: There is widespread research on the subject. I am delighted that we are discussing the new clause in the context of this Bill, which is very much about fly-tipping. We have had long discussions about fly-tipping, and it is important to change the culture surrounding it. The evidence from the United States and mainland Europe suggests that although the introduction of direct charging led to short-term problems, in the medium term when new standards were set and new levels of behaviour were expected, there was no increase in fly-tipping. We can resolve the problem of fly-tipping and encourage people by making them aware of the cost of waste disposal.
We can also reduce the amount of waste produced. All the evidence suggests that if people are responsible for the volume and weight of the material in their  dustbin, they will be more careful and will reduce the amount of waste. In Ireland, there is a big financial incentive from direct charging. The waste bills of people from Monaghan have reduced; they saw that they would save money and so changed their behaviour. The amount of waste has reduced, the amount they are paying has reduced, and the amount that the council is paying for waste disposal has reduced. It sounds to me like a win, win, win situation. 
Another win is that people are more careful about what they buy. Some of us—not me frequently—will have bought small bottles of perfume in large packaging. If people are responsible for paying for its disposal, they will buy less packaging. The large supermarkets, particularly Tesco, are undertaking some interesting work on packaging. I am very much of the opinion that an approach that measures the amount of waste—makes the disposal directly at waste cost—is going to reduce waste across the piece. 
Finally—I have an exciting life—I went to Bradford recently, to have a look at their dustbin lorry. The dustbin lorry can weigh the amount of waste in the bin, can tag the bin and knows where the waste is coming from—each particular household. A picture of waste disposal in Bradford can be built up. 
Increasingly, we need to be more aware of where waste is being produced and how we dispose of it. That is a big issue for local authorities, because of the landfill tax. We need better data and methodology. Such an approach would give us that. The result in Sweden, Holland, Germany, Ireland and, more locally, the Isle of Man has been waste reduction. In Germany, Denmark and Ireland recycling through direct charging has risen by 90 per cent. There is a lot going for that approach. 
I am pleased that the Committee will have a chance to debate direct charging. Both new clause 6 and new clause 9 give very permissive powers to the Secretary of State. Should a scheme come forward later, the Secretary of State is given considerable flexibility to take such an approach. On new clause 9, I was interested that the hon. Member for Guildford spelt out some of the criteria that the Secretary of State might like to consider in bringing forward such a scheme. For example, is it possible to design regulations that take into account household size or the ability of people to pay? 
Finally, when the Minister comes to reply, could he update the Committee about what is happening in the real world, outside this place, with waste disposal? A lot of local councils are piloting such an approach, which seems to show a willingness to go in that direction. 
Perhaps he could also tell us what has happened since December 2004, when the Government announced £5 million for local authorities to provide incentives for households to recycle waste. The money is available and local authorities are in a position to bid for it, giving the clear indication that, despite—or perhaps as a result of—the discussion that is going on between Departments, there is a feeling in Whitehall that we should look at the approach seriously. 
I am pleased that we have discussed this issue once again. Last time I moved a similar clause in Committee, I was told that it would not be long before we went down this road. I believe firmly that we will. The Minister, I suspect, will tell us not today, but I look forward to the next Parliament. I look forward to the manifestos of the individual political parties. If I was looking in my crystal ball, I would see not waste, but a more sustainable way of waste disposal through direct charging.

Sue Doughty: I very much welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who set out the case very clearly and constructively. The Liberal Democrats, too, have been following the debate after the publication of the strategy unit's waste development report, because much can be done. We have talked about charging, which does not necessarily mean a bill through the door. It can mean discounts and vouchers, and the opportunity to partake of council services using those vouchers. There is a whole range of schemes, but the clause does not define the sorts of charges or discounts that should be created. It is very much a matter for the local authority to decide what works in its area.
The whole purpose of the schemes is to encourage local authorities with good waste management strategies to take them one stage further to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, which we all agree must be reduced in one way or another. The best way to do that is by encouraging and persuading, rather than by what is being done under the current system. The report ''Waste not, Want not'' suggested that, by 2006, 30 per cent. of collection authorities would have tried incentive-based schemes to reduce their waste. With 11 months to go, however, that is simply not happening. We have not yet reached the point at which local authorities can move to the freedom of direct charging, which I suspect is because of current legislation and Treasury rules, although again I would welcome the opportunity for local authorities to consider it if they believed it to be the right thing for their waste strategy. 
The Government need to work with waste disposal authorities to implement a range of pilot schemes. The new clause very much assumes that pilot schemes will be advanced, that the Government will want to review them, encourage them and promote best practice. In a parliamentary question on 10 March 2004, the Liberal Democrats asked whether that could happen now. The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment replied: 
 ''Amendments to sections 45 and 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would be required''.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 10 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1546W.]
We therefore tabled an extra paragraph to allow for that. 
We want a variety of schemes to be implemented. We want to know how we can make progress with the best schemes and to see how we can deal with the scourge of landfill and the whole problem of waste. I quite accept the point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood that waste reduction, improvements to packaging and all the other strategies about which we talk so often in our debates are a part of the strategy for reducing waste. 
The new clause is an interim solution in that it allows pilot schemes to be carried out. Eventually, it would probably allow the Minister to say that further legislation was required in the light of those pilot schemes. 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

Sue Doughty: I was discussing why it is important for local authorities to be able to undertake pilots in this area, and why the clause enables those pilots to take place. We must get some clear measurements, so we know where we are going with variable waste charging, and how we might make improvements. It is strange that other countries seem to be able to get substantial decreases in landfill but we are not taking the opportunity to get those decreases for ourselves.
There are ''what if'' questions. What if fly-tipping increases? We need to get some hard information, so we know what is happening, and what steps can be taken to decrease fly-tipping. We also need to know whether the measurements are volume or weight based. We have had debates on that before; local authorities sometimes get worried because volume measures of waste disposal would help them—particularly in dealing with plastics—but weight is generally the way that we measure waste at present. What if the costs are too great? Much of the research by Eunomia and others suggests that costs tend to neutralise as landfill tax increases; it is not a great cost on local authorities because if they can reduce landfill tax charges, that in itself will pay for the scheme. 
Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2003 should in theory allow councils to give local council tax discounts, but it has not yet been used. One council wanted to use it to give council tax discounts to pensioners, but it had many problems with a legal quagmire. We must explore the problems associated with section 76.

David Ruffley: Does the hon. Lady agree with me that it was a far-sighted, radical—and Conservative—county council that initiated the proposal to help pensioners' council tax payments?

Sue Doughty: I would like to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I should say straight away that I am not an expert on the 2003 Act. I have been referring to it only in the context of this legislation. I cannot quite give him the satisfaction that he seeks, but I hope that he is following the argument about how the legislation would play a part in terms of council tax discounts in waste management. The fact is that that facility has not been used by councils: it seems to have led to a legal quagmire and has not been implemented.
We should like to know where the Minister believes that waste collection authorities are planning to use powers for council tax discounts, related to the amount of waste that households produce and how much recycled composting they carry out. Does he really think that councils can use existing legislation, or do we need our new clause if we are to avoid getting bogged down in legal problems? The Department does not seem to have issued guidance for collection authorities suggesting how existing legislation can be used. Is it going to do so? 
The Minister was asked, in a parliamentary question in March, about the matter and he said: 
 ''In its response to the Strategy Unit Report Waste Not Want Not, the Government undertook to carry out further work before a decision is taken on whether to enable local authorities to introduce pilot direct and variable charging schemes for collection and disposal of household waste. In cooperation with the Local Government Association and other stakeholders, and drawing on international experience, work is being undertaken to consider the practicalities of operating such schemes and how potential disadvantages could be overcome. The Government will consider the results of this work during 2004.''—[Official Report, 1 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1632W.] 
We had all that consideration, but in response to another question asking for a statement on work investigating the possibility of direct and variable charging schemes, he said: 
 ''The Department's work on variable household charging and household incentives for waste recycling and reduction is based on the body of existing, publicly available, research, supplemented by investigation into specific examples of such activity.''—[Official Report, 27 January 2005; Vol. 430, c. 458W.] 
That is not satisfactory. It looks as if nothing is being done. Is anything happening? Other countries are able to get on with this, but we are not receiving enough encouragement from the Government. If they and the Minister are not going to accept our new clause, we should like to know what he will do to develop the issue. The hon. Member for Sherwood has hinted that he hopes that there is more in the pipeline, and if we cannot have it now, we might have it tomorrow. I hope that the Minister will be able to encourage us. Will his manifesto say that there are clear plans, perhaps not yet, but in the future? We need to know what direction the Government are taking. 
There is tremendous potential for waste reduction and increases in recycling using the techniques that I have described. We know that such schemes work: over 1 million households in Europe are already using pay-by-weight systems. We know from research undertaken by the hon. Member for Sherwood, and other research conducted by Eunomia, that households can decrease their quantity of waste by up to 40 per cent. in weight. It promotes the separation of recyclable and compostable materials. We all want  that and we need it to happen, and as we are moving towards more stringent European requirements, the Government need it to happen. 
There are many good cases justifying our new clause. I want councils to have the opportunity of trying out different schemes and reporting back to the Government so that we can reconsider the matter. If the Minister will not accept the new clause, we should like to know what he plans to do.

David Drew: I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, but first I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Forth. I think that this is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship and I am delighted to do so, especially as I followed you at the Industry and Parliament Trust event this lunchtime.
I shall make only a few quick points, because the excellent speeches from my hon. Friend and from the hon. Member for Guildford have said it all. I hope that the Government can give us an idea of the possible time scale for at least the introduction of some pilot schemes. If we do not consider the proposed approach at least worthy of experimentation, I do not understand how we shall address some of the exciting new ideas on recycling, composting and reclamation. 
Reclamation is often left out of these discussions, but the reclamation industry could be one of the major industries in this country, because we have so many old buildings and facilities of which we could make much more use. That industry could punch well above the weight that it is currently punching at, but that will not happen unless people are actively encouraged to think of how they can dispose of things in positive ways, rather than, as they currently do, just sticking them in the dustbin and hoping that they get taken away or, at best, taking them to the tip and hoping that they get put in a hole in the ground. I hope that the Government realise that my hon. Friend's proposal is an idea whose time has come. As he said, the Select Committee sought at least an assurance that there would be a time scale. 
The proposal underpins the point about fiscal incentives. If we are to change people's mindsets and the culture on waste, we must do something significant. As on climate change, we keep warning people and saying that things must change, but we must recognise that there will be some pain as well as pleasure. People have grown accustomed to creating more waste year by year, but we all know that that cannot continue. 
The hope is that variable charging as a regime would concentrate the mind. To begin with, it would have to be implemented through pilot schemes. There would have to be incentives and allowances for those who could not afford to pay, whether they were lower-income families or pensioners, but, as my hon. Friend said, that is not beyond the wit of those who would have to think through the regulations. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will indicate that the Government are listening and keen to take this proposal forward, if not now, within the foreseeable  future, and that we might be able to append at least some ideology to the Bill, if not practical ways of implementing the idea.

Anne McIntosh: This has been a fascinating debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood on raising the issue of direct charging. It has been considered on a number of occasions, but perhaps this is the first formal opportunity that we have had to discuss it. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) said in an intervention: many of the best proposals in this regard have come from Conservative councils. I think that the Minister will confirm that, according to the last available figures, the 10 best-performing councils for recycling were Conservative-controlled. I am sure that he would wish to record his personal congratulations to those councils on properly promoting the strategy of the Government and, indeed, the Conservatives of encouraging recycling as and when appropriate.
I shall raise a number of concerns with the Minister. In particular, what would be the administrative burden on the householder and the local authority? Surely we should start from the premise that most householders—and probably most businesses—believe that they pay, via their council tax or business rate, towards the cost of collection and removal of their refuse. This would be an additional burden. 
The Minister will be aware that in certain circumstances the householder will, like us, be away from home. Many of us are, of necessity, away from our constituency homes and at the House of Commons during the week. Where recycling is provided for by the council, but the refuse collectors fail to observe common courtesies and minimum security measures such as replacing the box from which the compost, waste paper, plastic or glass has been removed, that should be a defence should the Minister go down the path of claiming that minimum security has been breached. 
I recall from my time in the European Parliament, Mr. Forth, as you will from yours, that in Belgium they used different coloured plastic bags for the various types of waste that were being disposed of. There was no risk of the householder's security being breached, because everything, including the waste container, was removed. However, the issue is of concern to me and many of my constituents. The one charge that could be made against the Government in relation to their introduction of variable charging is that it could be perceived to be an additional tax. How would the Minister rebut that charge, bearing in mind that most households probably consider that they are already paying handsomely for refuse collection?

Sue Doughty: Is the hon. Lady aware that Blaby district council, under the Tories, was the first council to introduce a form of variable charging? It made householders pay according to bin capacity above a certain volume. That is already happening in some counties.

Anne McIntosh: That is obviously a matter for the councils. My question was to the Minister, in order to establish whether he has made up his mind about Government policy on what seems to have been an omission from the Bill.
Can the Minister say what the implications are for businesses of different sizes? Should waste be measured by weight or by volume, and what conclusion has he reached about it? The figures that I have seen on the experience in Sweden and Denmark suggest that variable charging works, while those of the Library show that Scandinavian countries are moving away from recycling—in Denmark some 58 per cent. of household waste is disposed of by incineration. Can the Minister comment?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has introduced an interesting debate on a fascinating topic. It is a pity that the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment cannot be here today, because he has a passion and an enthusiasm for alternative ways of doing things, and has taken a great interest in the subject.
The problem is that this is a complex topic. It is fraught with possibilities of unintended consequences. For that reason, I am pleased that both my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood and the hon. Member for Guildford have referred to pilot projects, and learning the lessons by trying things out. In this sort of territory, unintended consequences can be avoided if things are tried out. 
The problem with variable charging is that while it can encourage different behaviour, sometimes that behaviour is benevolent and sometimes it is problematic. For instance, it can result in the dumping of rubbish rather than in an increase in recycling. I appreciate that the latter is the intention of the proponents of the new clauses. It can also have high administrative costs unless it is extremely well designed. Therefore, we would have to be very sure that the negative consequences would not follow. It is also true to say that there is the potential, as the hon. Member for Guildford said, for the expansion of composting. However, that cannot be done overnight. There are complications in relation to the types of waste that can be composted, so arrangements need to be in place at local authority level to cover various different circumstances and to cope with industrial and commercial as well as domestic waste. 
I appreciate that those who have moved the new clauses want to see an increase in recycling and a reduction in waste. Of the two, new clause 9 is slightly more Stalinist and more centralist than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, because it would limit the use of the power to incentive schemes authorised by the Secretary of State, the principal incentive being, presumably, the minimisation or avoidance of charges. The provision in new clause 9 appears to duplicate powers in section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, and to extend those powers to enable charging as part of an incentive scheme. 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
On resuming—

Alun Michael: I was indicating that the provision in new clause 9 appears to duplicate the well-being powers in section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 and extend those powers to enable charging to take place as part of an incentive scheme. Within such schemes, the new clause would also allow a charge for the deposit of household waste at some or all civic amenity sites in an area. There seemed to be a suggestion that the existing legislation was not being used, but I understand that the well-being powers in the 2000 Act are being used.
It is correct to say that council tax discounts could be given, although I am not aware that they have been, in practice. We are keen to try that. A short time ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment announced that £5 million would be made available for pilot scheme work, which will give us the opportunity to experiment in that way. That goes with the grain of the introductory comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood and, indeed, with the references made to pilot projects by the hon. Member for Guildford.

David Ruffley: Will the Minister elucidate on the following point? Kent county council adopted the principle of giving discounts to certain council tax payers, although those discounts did not relate specifically to recycling. However, on counsel's advice, that was ruled illegal. The Minister's advice appears not to apply in the case of recycling; the burden of his comments was that, in relation to recycling, such discounts were legal and could be applied, but were not being used?

Alun Michael: I cannot comment on the case of Kent county council, because I do not know what specific proposal was made. The hon. Gentleman indicated that the proposal was not in relation to recycling. To make a judgment about counsel's opinion, one has to understand the question being asked. Very often, if the question is asked in one way the answer is no, but if it is asked in a different way, the answer can be yes. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with the precise circumstances, I will be happy to respond to him, but I do not think that that situation relates to the new clause.
It is difficult to know whether the Conservatives are in favour or against certain propositions. From the comments made by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), it would seem that it would be okay, or at least tolerable, if Conservative councillors introduced variable charging, whereas, for the sake of balance and neutrality, if that had been done by a Liberal Democrat council, the hon. Lady would have complained and whinged about it.

Sue Doughty: The Minister may be interested to know that we understand that Conservative members on the Local Government Association were in favour of such schemes.

Alun Michael: Yes. In the LGA in recent times I have found a degree of willingness to think outside the box and to discuss issues broadly and constructively across political demarcation lines. I chair the rural central-local partnership, and that is certainly a very encouraging group with which to have meetings, because there is a lot of constructive discussion about how to make progress on a variety of issues.
It is clear that hon. Members seek progress on reducing waste and encouraging recycling. The Government are continuing to investigate options for influencing householder behaviour with particular emphasis on incentives. Research is under way on the extent and success of incentive schemes in England, which complements previous research on international schemes. 
It is worth pointing out that in April 2004, the National Consumer Council published a report, ''Carrots not Sticks'', in which it said: 
 ''It seems likely that punitive charging certainly without corresponding action against those responsible for packaging, and without safeguards that prevent dumping will be seriously counter-productive. Yet the behaviour of households is crucial when it comes to reducing waste. It is time to consider positive incentives to recognise the efforts people make to change their behaviour.'' 
That, of course, is the challenge we are trying to meet. I do not think there is a single ''stick'', or solution. There are big differences between circumstances in different local authorities. 
There are local authorities that are already using the powers available to them to drive, rather than incentivise, householder behaviour. For example, the London Borough of Barnet has succeeded in significantly raising recycling rates with a pilot compulsory recycling scheme, to be rolled out across the borough in April. Clause 48 will give authorities greater flexibility to enforce compulsory recycling schemes, so DEFRA Ministers are watching Barnet's scheme with great interest, while noting that compulsory recycling will not be an appropriate solution for all councils. Blaby district council has been referred to, and it has pushed up recycling by providing a medium-sized bin free of charge and imposing a charge for larger or additional receptacles. Of course, businesses may choose who provides their waste collection service, so they can select the provider who offers the optimum services at minimum cost to meet their requirements. 
There was also a reference to other European Union member states moving away from recycling, towards incineration. As far as I am aware, there is no general trend in that direction, but some have seen incineration—I visited plants in Germany under previous interests—as an element of the solution, along with recycling and waste reduction. It would be unwise, however, to regard that as a general trend. 
Householder participation in recycling waste reduction is central to achieving the goals that the Government have set for more sustainable household waste management. That is a culture change that is, crucially, encouraged by practice and the availability of alternatives, and we must also look at what incentives and penalties can work in practice. There is  plenty of agreement in the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood and others have spoken in favour of the direction of the amendment, and we heard what the hon. Member for Guildford said. What DEFRA is already seeking to do as a Department is to try to drive forward the use of alternatives and the reduction of waste. 
There are concerns over a number of aspects of new clause 9. The part that would authorise a waste collection authority to run an incentive scheme appears to duplicate powers that are being used to test such efforts in a variety of places. I suspect that new clause 9's amendment to section 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—enabling waste disposal authorities to charge for the deposit of household waste at civic amenity sites in all or part of their area—might turn out to be unworkable. It could lead to waste tourism, with householders searching for a civic amenity site that did not charge, or which could encourage the fly tipping that the clause seeks to avoid. Obviously, there is a difference between large rural authorities and, for instance, urban situations where there may be a variety of amenity sites in a closed area. 
I am surprised that no provision is made to charge in respect of treatment and disposal of household waste, in addition to collection, given that those are the major contributors to the total costs incurred in managing household waste. In any event, the Government are currently focusing their efforts on incentives. That stance is backed by early indications from research undertaken for DEFRA which appears to show that most local authorities are focusing on incentives as the way forward. It is the method being chosen by local authorities to address the issues, as is underlined by the National Consumer Council report to which I referred. All that work will inform the £5 million pilot programme helping local authorities to trial novel incentives in 2005-06. That seems to address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. 
As a country, we are making great strides towards the goal of sustainable waste management. We are poised to confirm that we met our national target to recycle all compost and 17 per cent. of household waste in 2003-04. It is a joint achievement by local authorities and householders, with Government support and without recourse to charging. We need to experiment to find out what works best and to encourage local authorities to adopt best practice. I assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Guildford that we will vigorously do just that.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am not entirely comfortable with it because we seem to be in the usual cycle of the Government saying that they will have a look and do a bit more and incentivise. Councils are still waiting for details of how they will be allowed to calculate composting as part of their landfill schemes. We asked whether we could apply variable charging schemes, and the Government replied that an amendment would be needed to sections 45 and 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We did not just dream that up. We based it on the Government's advice.
The clause addresses the spectre of people driving from here to there. We would expect the Secretary of State to look at that. We certainly would not expect him to encourage a scheme operated by a council that did not have adequate facilities. That would drive people to take their waste into other areas and would be counter-productive. I hope that the Secretary of State will take a view on that. 
One of the interesting things that is happening at present with recycling, which the Government are ignoring to some extent, is that people already drive their waste over boundaries. In my village of Shalford we take Waverley's plastics recycling because Waverley, a mile down the road, does not recycle its plastics. Similarly, when I was at the Tesco recycling centre in Guildford yesterday, people talked to me about the difficulties of plastic recycling, and a lady from Camberley had brought all her plastic bottles because Camberley did not have the facilities. 
Those are the sort of things that the Secretary of State should look at. No one would want to encourage an endless, long-term shipping of waste backwards and forwards. We would all like our councils to rise to the top as opposed to beating each other on which can throw the most waste over the boundary. 
Much more needs to be done to encourage people to recycle. It is a pity that the Government are choosing to ignore so much strong research in Europe that identifies how that could be done. I hope that the Minister can say a little more than that they are encouraging everyone and that it is all about incentives, without saying what those incentives are and how they might work. Nothing in what he has said identifies the incentives. I hoped that he would say that the new clauses are both good and that he might be minded to table an amendment on Report. We would have expressed our gratitude and sat down immediately.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady might acknowledge that I referred to the pilot schemes addressing those concerns, the lessons of which should be built into any further developments. She mentioned awaiting details of composting; she should be aware that the Environment Agency is consulting on what proportion of product from mechanical biological treatment counts toward landfill allowances under the trading scheme. The waste and resources action programme is undertaking related work to measure the contribution home-composting makes to diversion  from landfill. Both issues are important, and I shall be happy to write to the hon. Lady to give greater detail. The reason that the information and a firm situation have not been given is that the consultation is not complete.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister. That information is being consulted on as a result of an amendment that the Liberal Democrats tabled to the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, identifying a problem in that area. Ever since that Bill was enacted, we have been asking for further information, but whenever we ask the Government about this we do not get an answer. I press for an answer because the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 makes requirements of local government to which we all subscribed, such as the reduction of biological and municipal waste, but we need the relevant information so that councils can put adequate facilities in place. I would be grateful for a letter from the Minister, which will probably update the letters I have had from his colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment.
I am still concerned about this issue and disappointed by the Government's response. I am minded to push the clause to a vote because it is an important matter of principle. Many reasons have been given why we cannot go forward on discounts for council services, as have problems with other forms of charging, which need to be ironed out. By pressing for a vote, we will make the point that, while we accept that the Government are consulting, we feel strongly and want them to consider not only the incentives available but why some incentives are not working and what the legal drawbacks are. We encourage them to do what they can to remove the problems. 
On that basis, I move the clause formally.

Eric Forth: I remind the hon. Lady that the opportunity to divide the Committee on new clause 9 will come later. I will give her the wink at the appropriate time.

Paddy Tipping: We have had a fairly wide-ranging discussion, which has been slightly longer than others, and has heard more voices than is, perhaps, usual in this Committee. Our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), will be pleased that we are due to finish the sitting at 5.30 pm; I do not think that he encourages behaviour of that kind.
Characteristically, the Minister told us that he is prepared to think outside the box and reminded us that the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment is fascinated by this subject—what a sad description—and is always prepared to consider alternate ways of doing things. That conjures up a lot of images. 
The theme of the debate has been one of general support for our direction of travel—that there should be incentive charges and that we should move toward direct charging. Of course, it is not all one-way traffic. Hon. Members are right to say that there are administrative costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked about fly-tipping; clearly such issues need to be taken into account. It must be the case that,  by making people more responsible for their waste by ensuring that there are financial tools for reward or incentive, rather than penalties, we can make progress. 
Several hon. Members rightly said that the legislative background is unclear, and it would be helpful if the Minister could assist us by explaining matters in writing. I am delighted that £5 million will be available next year to promote good practice and pilot schemes. 
I will not support new clause 9, which has been characterised as Stalinist, which I would describe as restrictive and not particularly liberal. The hon. Member for Guildford may wish to reconsider her position later. It is important to learn from experience, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7 - Noise act 1996: requirement for consultation

'The appropriate person shall consult the appropriate bodies on the need for regulations to extend the provisions of the Noise Act 1996 (c. 37) to the hours of 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., to enable any individual present in a dwelling to make a complaint to the relevant local authority that excessive noise was being emitted from another dwelling during those hours.'. —[Miss McIntosh.] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—National Noise Reduction Strategy— 
 '(1) The Secretary of State shall have a National Noise Reduction Strategy. 
 (2) The strategy shall address any nuisance or health problems resulting from environmental noise, with particular regard to— 
(a) neighbour and neighbourhood noise; 
(b) noise from industrial and commercial premises; 
(c) works noise; 
(d) alarms; 
(e) transport and traffic noise; and 
(f) any other noises or sources of noise that the Secretary of State believes require particular attention as part of the strategy. 
 (3) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report on progress made by the strategy.'.

Anne McIntosh: I hope the new clause will appeal to the Minister, as his Department, or the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, released a consultation paper on ambient noise strategy that attracted attention because it did not include neighbourhood noise. The Government proposed a separate strategy to deal with neighbour noise issues, which everyone seemed to think would encompass some neighbourhood noise strategy as part of the Bill.
During consultation on the noise and clean neighbourhood strategies, did the Minister receive representations on building regulations in respect of insulation, especially noise insulation between accommodation units? Considering the time that the Government devoted to discussionson chewing gum and dog mess—albeit worth while—it would be a source of satisfaction to those organisations who are concerned about noise if the Government introduced a clause on it. 
I accept that in some situations noise may be no more than a minor irritant, but for the majority of people who report noise problems, the situation is quite different. The new clause recognises that in semi-detached residential properties, in flats or new developments and in the tenement flats in Glasgow and Edinburgh, noise can cause severe nuisance. The Government could consider a number of alternative strategies. One could be a greater use of tenancy agreements to tackle neighbour noise nuisance. In guidance from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government said in August 2004 that landlords would be required to draw up statements on how they would deal with antisocial behaviour and antisocial behaviour orders. However, the Government and the Minister must recognise that local authorities and housing associations are often reluctant to deal with those who perpetrate such noise and have other social problems. It is incumbent on local authorities to try to help tenants work through their problems. 
I know from my constituency case work, my surgery case work and my constituency mail bag that the problem seems to be on the increase. Rather than evict tenants, it is incumbent on local authorities, or increasingly on housing associations, to try to resolve the problem or to re-house them. That poses a particular problem in areas such as the Vale of York, where we have insufficient social housing or affordable homes. Indeed, over the past seven and a half to eight years, housing stock has substantially decreased. 
Why have the Department not produced another noise strategy and why is there no reference in the Bill to poor sound insulation? I hope that the Government will be minded to look sympathetically on the new clause, which would bring a provision into the remit of the Bill—as with other forms of noise pollution, such as audible alarms and the need for a responsible person—for an appropriate person who will 
''consult the appropriate bodies on the need for regulations to extend the provisions of the Noise Act 1996 (c.37) to the hours of 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. to enable any individual present in a dwelling to make a complaint to the relevant local authority that excessive noise was being emitted from another dwelling during those hours.'' 
Obviously, that raises a particular issue when tenants might simply not get on. I hope that the Government would consider that, if they were minded to adopt the new clause. We would seek to prevent vexatious and malicious reporting of noise pollution, but the purpose of the new clause is to seek Government support for real issues of noise pollution, to ask why they have not seen fit to legislate on them. We ask them to look kindly on new clause 7 and to adopt it as their own.

Sue Doughty: I agree with the hon. Lady's early remarks; we need a national noise reduction strategy. I welcome the work that the Government have done on noise nuisance. We know that that work has been extensive—it is not the sort of problem that one solves overnight—and was important in enabling DEFRA to meet its objectives for protecting the environment and enhancing quality of life and public health. We need action to follow that research, and we want to press that point with the Government: having carried out their noise nuisance research programme, where will it lead?
We have talked about specific sorts of noise, but discussion has been limited. We have neighbour and neighbourhood noise, and we need to know more about the sort of noise that we get from industrial and commercial premises. In particular, we need to know more about lower-level noise and vibration, as noise is not all the same. 
Transport and traffic noise is a problem. Some of us have constituents who live next to busy roads or roads that have recently become busy, such as the A3 as it runs through my constituency. The character of that area has changed enormously, as traffic flows have changed and raised the noise to unbearable levels for some of my constituents. Yet, there is nothing that triggers action by the Department for Transport to deal with a road. One might go to see the Minister and they might say, ''Well, there isn't any money''. However, as noise levels rise to unacceptable levels we start needing a strategy. 
Other issues include train horns, which since the introduction of new rolling stock have made the lives of many of our constituents a misery. They are much noisier than previous horns, so there is a problem. I have been fighting on behalf of my constituents with the Rail Safety and Standards Board for a long time to ensure that they are used only when necessary and not above a certain decibel level. What else can be done? 
Those sorts of things could be done nationally as opposed to individual MPs trying to pick off the train operating companies as they go through their constituencies. There are a couple of Virgin Trains a day in my constituency, part of the constituency gets First Great Western Link trains—it has been less responsive—and South West Trains is doing a little more. Possibly, there could be a national guideline  about broadband horns, which are far more directional. At a stroke, the problem that has arisen during the past two or three years could be dealt with. 
 We need the strategy. There is a lot more that Government could put in. Our proposal is a probe, and I hope it will encourage them to move forward from the work that they have done researching the problem towards making an announcement about how they intend to mitigate against it. 
We cannot underestimate the problem. As this island gets more crowded, as we build homes closer to one another and as people have to live next door to industrial plants as a result of the shortage of building land, such things become imperative. We need to get a grip now, before the situation gets worse.

Alun Michael: May I summarise what I was going to say by saying that proposed new clause 7 asks for something that we have already done and proposed new clause 10 asks for something that is already in hand?
The hon. Member for Guildford made it clear that she was proposing the measure as a probing new clause and was kind enough to acknowledge the work that the Government have done. New clause 7 simply proposes that we consult on extending the Noise Act 1996. There was no call to extend it in the ''clean neighbourhoods'' consultation and there is no consensus that the Noise Act methodology is the best way of dealing with noise during the day. 
 There has been extensive consultation over a considerable period. A lot of good work has been done with local authorities on the sort of issues in the Bill, and, indeed on other ideas that we have not brought forward where they were not supported by the evidence. 
As for new clause 10, the Government are committed to developing noise strategies, and I want to refer specifically to two. The neighbourhood noise strategy will include a thorough review of existing legislation on noise and consideration of ways in which noise from domestic, business and industrial premises can be reduced. 
There is a comprehensive research programme to inform that strategy, and that is the research to which the hon. Member for Guildford referred. Initial research has scoped the extent of the problem of neighbourhood noise and the sources that are the cause of such nuisance. Current research is aimed at producing pioneering guidance to local authorities for assessing noise to improve their ability to deal with various types of noise nuisance where that has proved difficult. Any hon. Member who has dealt with noise issues in constituency case work will know that it is not an area where there is a magic wand or simple solution. Policy recommendations will be developed with the co-operation of all interested parties, which clearly includes the Local Government Association, and we intend to start consulting on the strategy this year. 
The Government are also committed to developing a national ambient noise strategy to tackle noise from industry and from major forms of transport, including road, rail and aircraft. As hon. Members will  appreciate, that is a different type of noise—often an underlying and pervasive one—which needs different types of responses. 
Development of the national ambient noise strategy is a three-phase process. The first phase is underway and that involves analysing the ambient noise climate in England. In simple terms, that means determining the number of people affected by different levels of noise, the source of that noise and the locations of those affected. I have seen some of the work going on, and the scientists and technologies involved. It is very complicated but very impressive, and I think that it will lead to results that will go in the direction in which the hon. Member for Guildford seeks to take us. 
The work is being done through the Noise Mapping England project, a nationwide programme to map noise from major transport and industrial sources. Mapping on that scale has never been attempted; the project is a pioneering exercise. Mapping standards for London road traffic and Heathrow have already been completed, as have pilot studies for mapping noise from rail and industry. Other studies include the mapping of noise from road traffic in major urban areas and from major roads; that is also in hand. 
Once the results of the mapping project are known, noise hot spots and less noisy areas can be identified and we will be able to determine the extent of any noise problems throughout the country. That will help us to identify where measures are needed to target problem areas. 
In addition, the adverse effects of noise and the techniques available to take action to improve the situation will be investigated, along with methodologies for economic analysis. The result of the research will be evaluated and priorities for action identified. The Government will then develop the necessary policies to tackle the issues identified. 
What I have described can sometimes sound general in its input. However, I know, for instance, that steps have been taken by colleagues at the Department for Transport to consider, where roads are being maintained, laying a surface that has a less intrusive impact on the local community. That is to the immediate benefit of people who are in the vicinity of some of our roads that have higher volumes of traffic.

Sue Doughty: I appreciate what the Minister says about resurfacing roads; we are familiar with the issue of new surfaces. However, at the moment resurfacing is very reliant on normal programmes for roads within the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency. People are often told that resurfacing will take place, perhaps, five years hence. Five years is a long time to live with the misery of road noise.

Alun Michael: For crying out loud, of course it takes time. Changing the surfaces of roads cannot be done overnight. Even the elastic Liberal Democrat 1p on income tax would be unlikely to produce the money to  resurface all roads in a single year. Many of the hon. Lady's suggestions have been helpful and constructive, but, if I may say so, that last remark was not very wise.
Eighty-nine per cent. of consultation responses on whether the strategy that I have outlined should be developed supported the Government's approach. We are also implementing the environmental noise directive, which requires us to make noise maps for major urban areas, major roads, railways and airports. We are required to use those maps to produce noise action plans for major urban areas and transport links, and to manage noise issues and effects—including noise reduction, if necessary. Those plans will be drawn up in full consultation with the public and interested parties. 
As for any amendment to building regulations, that will be a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and is not related to the issue under discussion. However, I can say that noises in buildings will be dealt with in the neighbourhood noise strategy. We are about to publish the research report on noise problems and suggested solutions related, for example, to laminated floors. Many things come down to very specific circumstances, and we will set up an industry steering group to take proposals forward on the basis of that research. 
A great deal is going on. We intend to launch both the strategies that I have referred to in 2007, because there is an enormous amount of work being done to ensure that they are effective and comprehensive. I ask the hon. Member for Vale of York to withdraw the new clause and support the Government's approach, which is to tackle noise problems in a way that is comprehensive and viable for the long term.

Anne McIntosh: I listened with great interest to what the Minister said. Only towards the end of his remarks did he address the points made in the new clause. The fact that the Government are considering a noise strategy for transport is welcome. The Minister mentioned delivery vans and there is also the problem of some road surfaces being noisier than others, although I do not know whether the Minister mentioned that.
I should perhaps declare an interest, in that RAF Linton-on-Ouse, one of the only two—I think—remaining RAF training bases, is in my constituency. There are perhaps more circuits and bumps there than at any other airport outside Heathrow, which allegedly leads to noise pollution. The purpose of the new clause was not to address those points, but to elicit from the Minister what stage the ambient noise strategy was at, which he talked about. 
I think that the Minister said that he would not accept the new clause, regrettably. His reasoning is that such matters would more appropriately fall to the ODPM. The problem with that is that, equally, other provisions in the Bill would fall more appropriately either to the Home Office or the ODPM.

Alun Michael: I am not sure how the hon. Lady has come to misinterpret what I said when I referred to the changes in building regulations as matters for the ODPM and falling outside the scope of the Bill—  indeed, building regulations are dealt with by existing legislation. That is why I suggested that her remarks should be addressed elsewhere. I am happy, and have been throughout, to deal with issues arising within the Bill that fall to other Departments as well as DEFRA. However, when matters fall outside the scope of the Bill and where existing legislation deals with changes to building regulations, it seems entirely inappropriate to respond more fully than I have already.

Eric Forth: Order. We have probably heard quite enough about building regulations. I remind the Committee that we dealing with new clauses 7 and 10, on which I ask the hon. Member for Vale of York to concentrate her thoughts and remarks.

Anne McIntosh: I have not mentioned building regulations during this stage of our proceedings, although I mentioned them earlier and I am grateful for the Minister's comments. On reflection, we should like to press new clause 7 to a vote.

Sue Doughty: The purpose of our new clause was to probe the Government. We knew that there was more to be done. Having stressed the need to take a much stronger view of the nuisance of noise in all its different forms and having heard the Minister's reply on that, we will not press new clause 10.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 10.

McIntosh, Miss Anne
Ruffley, Mr. David
Simmonds, Mr. Mark
NOES
Ainger, Mr. Nick
Bradley, Peter
Doughty, Sue
Drew, Mr. David
Green, Matthew
Hall, Patrick
McDonagh, Siobhain
Michael, Alun
Tipping, Paddy
Turner, Mr. Neil
Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 9 - Incentive schemes for collection of householder waste

'(1) The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is amended as follows. 
 (2) For section 45, subsection (3), substitute— 
 ''(3) No charge shall be made for the collection of household waste except in cases that are— 
(a) prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State; and in any of those cases— 
(i) the duty to arrange for the collection of the waste shall not arise until a person who controls the waste requests the authority to collect it; and 
(ii) the authority may recover a reasonable charge for the collection of the waste from the person who made the request; or 
(b) under the provision of subsection (3A) below.
 (3A) The Secretary of State may authorise a waste collection authority to operate in all or any part of their area an incentive based household waste collection scheme, a proposal for which has been submitted to the Secretary of State, to reward householders who separate their waste for recycling and who minimise their residual waste. 
 (3B) Before any authorisation may be given under subsection (3B) above, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that a proposed scheme— 
(a) has identified and addressed the particular needs of low income households; 
(b) has identified the needs of households with particular problems reducing residual waste; 
(c) will only operate in areas with adequate provisions of recycling collections; 
(d) will only operate in areas with either composting collections or a home composting scheme; and 
(e) has adequate measures to address potential increases in fly-tipping.'' 
 (3) In section 51, at end of subsection (2), insert— 
 ''(2A) Where the Secretary of State has authorised a scheme under section 45(3A) above, that authorisation may include specific exemptions to subsection (2)(c) above in all or part of the area of that authority.'. 
[Sue Doughty] 
Brought up, and read the First time. 
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 11.

Doughty, Sue
Green, Matthew
NOES
Ainger, Mr. Nick
Bradley, Peter
Drew, Mr. David
Hall, Patrick
McDonagh, Siobhain
McIntosh, Miss Anne
Michael, Alun
Ruffley, Mr. David
Simmonds, Mr. Mark
Tipping, Paddy
Turner, Mr. Neil
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 12 - Battery recycling

'(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations within 24 months requiring producers of household batteries to make arrangement for the receipt and recycling of batteries they have produced from retail collection points; and for the costs of collection and recycling of industrial and automotive batteries to be covered by the producer.'.—[Sue Doughty] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Sue Doughty: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Batteries present a big problem. They contain many harmful substances. The UK seems to be at the bottom of the league table for recycling them and we shall have to smarten up our act. The Government have said nothing encouraging about what we will do about battery recycling. 
We tabled several questions on the matter, and it appears that the United Kingdom recycles 0.5 per cent.  of batteries. Belgium recycles 58.5 per cent. The next lowest to us in the table is Spain, and it recycles 14 per cent. of batteries. People can put them in a collection box at markets. The figure for France is 16 per cent. Out of eight countries for which figures are available, we are way down—we are scarcely off the bottom. 
There are no domestic battery recycling facilities in the UK, although we obtained information today that one will be opened on 17 March. We are pleased about that. It will deal with alkaline and zinc carbon batteries, which represent 80 per cent.—and rising—of household batteries, but clearly the Government have no strategies in place to encourage the market or to deal with the shamefully low recycling rate. If battery waste were being produced by industry it would be classed as hazardous waste, but because it comes from households it is not. 
There was previously a battery recycling facility at Avonmouth, but the parent company closed it. Any batteries that are collected are sent to France for recycling. Alkaline and zinc batteries are sent elsewhere in Europe. We do not know where lithium batteries go. They tend to be incinerated, which is very bad news. 
We have been trying to find out what has been happening to batteries in the UK—whether they are buried, burned or sent overseas—but there is no data. We have asked how many batteries have been sent to other countries for recycling since 1997. We know that that there is an informal agreement because we all know people who put their old batteries in their cars and take them to France. That takes us back to the idea about waste jumping boundaries. However, there is no data. 
We asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many lithium batteries were incinerated in the UK in a year. The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment said that he did not know. That is not a small problem. It has an impact on human health. Eight per cent. of rechargeable domestic batteries contain the toxic chemical cadmium. As we know, every now and then people throw away their rechargeables when they no longer hold their charge. 
The website of the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and that of the Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage state that the chemical cadmium is a persistent bioaccumulative that does not break down in the environment, and when humans are exposed to it through the food chain, the effects can range from headaches and digestive irritation to kidney disease, lung damage and cancer. 
In answer to a parliamentary question on the environmental consequences of disposing of spent batteries in landfill, the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment said: 
 ''The main environmental concerns associated with the landfilling of batteries relate to the potential generation and discharge of leachate into the environment of hazardous substances i.e. cadmium, lead and mercury, all known to be toxic to the aquatic environment and human health.''
These substances are persistent. He continued: 
 ''Discharge of these substances to the environment are likely to occur through (a) the compaction of weight, leading to substances discharging from the battery and (b) percolation of rainfall further leaching these substances into groundwater. It is however worth noting that spent batteries constitute only 0.1 per cent. of the Municipal Solid Waste stream.''—[Official Report, House of Commons, 11 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1627W.] 
However, the EU directive will require all member states to recycle 44 per cent. of household batteries and 80 per cent. of household nickel cadmium batteries, and to collect and send for recycling all automotive industrial batteries. So we are expecting, as is usual when directives get transposed into national law, that this directive will need to be transposed into national law in 2007. If so, several of that directive's requirements will need to met by 2008. It is now 2005. 
The new clause is reasonable. Indeed, it is absolutely essential, and one would hope that the Government will adopt it. I am sure that the Government would not dispute the harm that batteries do to the environment and to human health, or the persistent problems caused by batteries not being disposed of properly. That is why we tabled the new clause, almost in a spirit of helpfulness. The Government can make a useful amendment to the legislation to deal with the problem of battery recycling, and we hope that the Minister will deal with it in that way.

Anne McIntosh: I note with interest what the hon. Lady has to say. The Opposition have taken several initiatives on the vexed problem of producers of household batteries, which are part of a serious problem that the Government have not addressed by signing up to several EU directives, particularly the one that does not allow the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. There will be many opportunities to consider the matter, including a Westminster Hall Adjournment debate tomorrow, but we take the issue seriously and would prefer it to be dealt with as part of the Government's broader strategy for developing hazardous waste disposal, possibly with their European partners, as the problem of the disposal of household batteries will clearly be with us for some considerable time.

Alun Michael: I am not sure that it is reasonable to expect us to take comments from the hon. Member for Vale of York about signing up to European treaties, when one considers the record of the then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, to whom the hon. Lady referred with such glowing admiration, as she was the one who signed up to the most remarkable tract of European legislation while appearing to condemn anyone else who was interested in Europe.

David Ruffley: She was misled.

Alun Michael: Mistaken, perhaps. I am not sure that she was misled.
In response to the hon. Member for Guildford, I agree about the importance of dealing with batteries. She will know of the leadership that we have offered in Europe in trying to deal with some of these issues. I am a little surprised that she did not refer to the fact that political agreement on a new batteries directive was  reached at the December 2004 meeting of the Environment Council. The directive will make producers responsible for the collecting and recycling of all sorts of batteries. As there are different sorts of batteries, so cases are different, and generalising across the board might be a mistake. 
The directive is expected to be adopted in 2006. The problem is that it may undergo tax changes before then—that is a familiar experience—so we cannot be sure at this stage of the requirements that it will impose. It follows that any UK legislation on battery collection and recycling, including the requirements of the proposed new clause, passed prior to the directive being adopted might then have to be amended soon after it is passed to ensure transposition and consistency with the directive. That problem is compounded by the fact that we do not yet know whether the directive will be transposed by secondary legislation, or whether it will require primary legislation. 
Furthermore, the directive will have a much wider scope than that covered by the proposed new clause. As such, introducing new legislation on batteries ahead of transposing the new directive would cause confusion, uncertainty and unnecessary additional burdens to industry.

Anne McIntosh: My understanding is that a directive, by its very nature, means that the way of achieving the detail of the agreed objective will be left to secondary legislation. Therefore, I would be interested to learn whether this is a new concept. Are the Government coming forward with primary legislation to implement an EU directive?

Alun Michael: In general, secondary legislation can deal with the transposition of European legislation, but there are circumstances in which that does not apply. We are not certain of the form of the directive as yet.
It is worth pointing out that the UK has an excellent record in recycling automotive batteries, but for portable batteries it would be difficult to exceed the targets proposed in the directive of 25 per cent. collection after four years and 45 per cent. collection after eight years. 
Several EU states with excellent recycling records have taken that amount of time to reach these collection levels. Given the experience of battery schemes in other member states, it is likely that a combination of collection routes will need to be used in order to maximise the levels of batteries collected. For household batteries—small sealed batteries—retailers and local authorities are likely to have some involvement. More innovative routes may also be used, such as incentive schemes and collection via schools. 
To get a head start on the directive coming into force, we are currently in discussions with a range of interested parties. The directive has the following aims: first, to harmonise national legislation across the European Union; secondly, to contribute to the  creation of an internal market for the collection and recycling of old batteries; thirdly, to put in place arrangements for financing to avoid freeloaders in the market; and, fourthly, to provide a level playing field for all the actors involved. 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

Alun Michael: I had just finished outlining our discussions with a range of interests to get ahead of the directive. I hope that that will have given some encouragement, particularly to the hon. Member for Guildford, about what we are doing instead of waiting for the directive to come into play. It would be inappropriate to place requirements in legislation ahead of being certain of what is required from the directive. Sometimes haste can lead to confusion. For example, people might start down one track and be invited to invest in facilities that might not meet the precise requirements.
It is important to get the proposed directive in place, and it has our strong support. It cleared scrutiny in both Houses early in 2004. At that time, the UK Government welcomed its aims, which were 
''to achieve environmental objectives and to have an effective and workable directive that is economically viable for those with producer obligations.'' 
There were one or two comments about a scheme in the late 1990s in which a small percentage of rechargeable batteries containing cadmium were collected. Regrettably, the scheme, which was called Rebat, fell into disuse when not all battery producers agreed to provide funding. The hon. Member for Guildford asked about lithium battery recycling, and she may be interested to know that AEA Technology has established a facility for recycling such batteries at Golspie in north Scotland, and trials are under way. 
The record shows considerable variation in levels of recycling of different types of batteries. The figure for consumer batteries is below 2 per cent., whereas for automotive and industrial batteries it is more than 90 per cent. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been in discussions with the Local Government Association, the Waste and Resources Action Programme and battery manufacturers and retailers about establishing a project to promote portable-battery collection and recycling, and to develop battery-recycling infrastructure in conjunction with several authorities. 
I endorse the plea made by the hon. Member for Guildford about battery recycling. We are addressing that issue. What would be inappropriate would be to set a time limit or to put legislative requirements ahead of certainty about the directive's requirements. I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his full and informative answer. I certainly take his point that, if the directive is coming along, precision is important and working with what the directive requires is right.
In the spirit of getting to the end of the Bill, I will comment on the new word that appeared with hazardous waste, which was ''head start''. I say hurrah and welcome, and how good it was to hear that; we will be watching what happens. As the Minister knows, the Opposition have often said, particularly of hazardous waste, that there is too little being done, too late. The waste industry is left with a huge headache trying to scrabble together mechanisms for dealing with waste that can no longer go to landfill. 
I hope that the Minister and his team will rapidly work with the suppliers and the people dealing with collection and processing of batteries, narrowing down options for what might or might not be required under the directive. Instead of getting to the day when co-disposal ends and finding that we are not sure what we are doing, the systems will be clearly in place and we will have licensed places able to take batteries for disposal when we need them. 
I will work on what the Minister said and will watch to see what will happen. I welcome the words ''head start'', which are slightly new to this sort of debate, and will not press the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Forth. May I say what a pleasure it has been to serve under your chairmanship and that of Mr. Taylor? I hope you will convey our thanks to him.
It is appropriate to thank the Clerk, Hansard, the attendants and the police officers, who have made sure that the Committee, despite the high passions raised on various occasions, has proceeded in an orderly fashion. 
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their support. Indeed, several of them have managed to stay awake for considerable parts of the discussion. I thank the speaking Whip on the Opposition Benches for his occasional sedentary interventions, as well as for leaping into the lead position at one of our sittings. I am grateful to the Opposition for what has been, in general, constructive engagement and probing of the Government's entirely virtuous approach to these matters. 
I hope that I have thanked all those required to be thanked—except the officials who have supported me. They have done a tremendous job in the preparation of the Bill and in the consultations that went on before. 
Mr. Forth, it has been a pleasure to be a member of this Committee.

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order. May I echo most warmly the Minister's kind words, particularly for your and Mr. Taylor's excellent chairmanship. We have benefited from your guidance. We give thanks,  too, for the excellent support we have all had from the Clerk, and to Hansard, which has borne with us when we have lost the papers needed for writing the report, the attendants and, as ever, the police for watching over us. I pay particular tribute to my colleagues who manfully carried on in my inexcusable absence while on business outside the Committee. I hope that I am forgiven for that. My hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds, for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) leapt into the breach.
I thank the Minister and, through him, the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment. The full briefing from their officials has led to a greater understanding and clarification of the Bill. We are obviously disappointed that we have not managed to change it one iota but we hope to do so on Report. We have also greatly enjoyed working with the hon. Members for Guildford and for Ludlow (Matthew Green).

Sue Doughty: I echo the thanks to you, Mr. Forth and to Mr. Taylor for ably guiding us through the Bill. It has led to some complex areas involving DEFRA and some aspects of ODPM legislation. It was useful to have that help and support. Particular thanks go to the officials, the Clerks, the police and the Hansard reporters. We need those people for our Committees to work. Their diligence in asking the right questions at the right time ensure that the entries in Hansard accurately reflect our proceedings.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow for his expertise on ODPM matters and his general support. My thanks go to the Whips for ensuring that we got through the business in the time allocated. I thank the Ministers for the thoughtful and constructive way in which they responded to our points. I thank the Conservative Members for the points they brought to the debate, which has given us an adequate opportunity to examine the Bill. I look forward to working with this team should the opportunity present itself again.

Eric Forth: It falls to me to add my thanks to my parliamentary colleagues for the way in which they have conducted the Committee. They have made it a pleasurable task for me and my colleague David Taylor to take the Chair. We are both very grateful. I add my thanks to our officers, the police, the badge messengers and the Hansard reporters for, as ever, giving us their support throughout the Committee.
May I also acknowledge the silent but professional presence of departmental officials who are a key to any Committee? They are often unsung and unrecognised, but I know how valuable they are and how much any Minister relies on them for their professional advice. Most of all I should like to thank our Clerk who has kindly but firmly guided me through the Committee and kept me more or less on the straight and narrow. For that I am very grateful. 
Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at eighteen minutes past Five o'clock.